[timey]

Jeff in reply to your post which I cannot quote either without blacklisted term error message appearing... (this means that all posting functions from thread board are no longer working for me from my phone, (which is all I have), only the reply function from recent posts board is operational now)

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

...with regards to t1,t2,t3, this would usually describe a time sequence of events, so let's be clear that this t1,t2,t3 are describing 'how' time passes rather than the passing of time.  In fact we can state that t1,t2,t3 are time calculations that are dependant on the geometric space coordinates, which are then totted up to result in the time aspect of the spacetime matrix.

It is my 'loose' understanding that matrix maths are an amalgamation of several or more aspects that are sliding scales in relation to each other.

The proposed inverted  time dilation for open space is faster near mass and slower far from mass.

The GR gravitational time dilation for mass in relation to mass is slower near mass and faster out in space.

SR motion related time dilation is slower for a faster motion, and faster for a slower motion.

We find that our time matrix has sliding scales.  If you could calculate a 1 hertz relationship to energy, and a 1 energy unit relationship to time periods, I'd suggest this would be the way to proceed.

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

At some point in the proceedings I reckon we will have the equations required to build a TARDIS.

[alancalverd]

Timey: Can't quote for some reason - keeps coming up with "blacklisted term" but anyway

kinetic energy E = (mv^2)/2 where v is velocity.

If m = 0 then E = hf.

Since everything in the observable universe is either a massive particle or a photon, that should cover all the maths you need.

[timey]

Alan - Thanks for confirming that it as simply as I had thought...

In my model kinetic energy must be subtracted, or proportionally subtracted to calculate SR motion related time dilation, and where rest mass is zero, kinetic energy doesn't apply.  And... Planck's h constant is a time dilation related function.

Jeff - My model, when calculated, should reveal (if I am correct), that it is indeed possible to warp the SR time dilation aspect in relation to the proposed inverted gravitational  time dilation aspect, and travel distance in open space a lot faster than we currently do...
Although this will in practice be a type of time travel of sorts, it will not possible to arrive in the future, or revisit the past, only to initiate the conditions to make the journey distance in a lesser amount of time passing... but I am now running before we have even learned to crawl, so...

Alan, Jeff, or anyone else - I guess my question is:

Is anyone going to help me calculate this model?

[alancalverd]

If you can explain it, and it makes dimensional sense, the calculation will be trivial.

To start, just take one case - the static clock at altitude (no need to mess with kinetic energy!) - and explain in words why it seems to run fast when observed from the ground.

[timey]

A clock at altitude is subject to additional gravity potential energy.  (the mass of the clock is comprised of atomic structures that are comprised of particle components, and it is these particle components that are increased in potential energy... and this increase in potential energy will occur proportionally to the energy relationship that these component particles of atomic structures maintain within their structures, and the equivalence principle is therefore maintained, and physical cause is given for an observer aging in keeping with his clock)
This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.

The clock is at this point stationary relative to the comparison clock on the ground...  And in that any kinetic energy factor that is occurring due to the motion of both clocks co-moving with the planet Earth's motion, this kinetic energy factor is equal for both clocks.

If we then zoom a clock into motion relative to the stationary clock, (in a uniform gravity field for simplicity), then additional KE will increase the frequency of the clocks energy transitions...  We know this is wrong via experiment and observation, but not to worry, KE is a dissipating energy.  There is every reason to subtract it either entirely or, more likely proportionally, to calculate SR time dilation effect.

Its just that one would have to find another means of calculating the observation of light, which I have suggested, and given the example above of adding kinetic energy to mass for a slower rate of time, the concept of calculating kinetic energy for light is rather dubiously conceived anyway.

[alancalverd]

This additional potential energy increases the frequency of the clocks energy transitions.

Unsubstantiated poppycock.

If increasing gravitational potential increased the binding energy of electrons in atoms, things would shrink and get stronger at altitude. Do they? 

[timey]

Erm, you seem to have forgotten that this 'new' concept incorporates a redefinition of gravitational acceleration.  The mass of the electron will not be increased by the addition of potential energy...
(As a side issue - Pete has posted elsewhere that currents physics states that the concept of relativistic mass isn't increased by the addition of potential energy.  Can you confirm if this is true?)
...the additional potential energy will appear as though it is additional gravitational acceleration, but really it is just quicker time, and the binding will happen quicker due to this quicker time, not due to additional gravitational force.

Therefore there will be no shrinkage, as you suggest.

[alancalverd]

Nothing to do with the mass of the electron. I'm simply examining your assertion that the quantum levels in an atom or molecule are affected by gravitational potential. 

[timey]

So why would more energy cause a greater strength of binding and result in shrinkage?

[alancalverd]

That's what binding energy does. It holds the atoms together. It also determines the wavelength of the photon emissions associated with electron transitions, so if one alters, so must the other.

[timey]

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

[alancalverd]

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'

quantum mechanics

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.

[timey]

...and what is the opposing force that stops the atomic structure from collapsing?'

quantum mechanics

Given that all energy relationships will increase proportionally?

bollocks (see "quantum mechanics" above)

I'm sorry, the meaning of your  reply is unclear...

I am saying that an atomic structure that has a binding energy that holds the structure together either incorporates, or has an opposing energy that stops the structure from collapsing upon itself.

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

ie: No shrinkage.

Wots with the poppycock and bollocks mate?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

[timey]

Aside from the necessity for a redefinition of G...

As to a redefinition of G or g, you made a very interesting post that I've reposted twice now concerning sigma wave.  I can put this in context again if you like, but you turned your nose up last time.

Here G is not the gravitational constant. It is a function with a set of parameters. I am awaiting your instructions on how to define the expression that the function will use.

I do not understand the mechanics of how you will mathematically use the G function in relation to the spatial and time dimensions.

I just see spatial coordinates giving gravity values being plugged into the 3 dimensional time matrix, and the sliding scales of energy levels of the time matrix being transposed to time values and totted up to give us the 'proper time' at any given spatial coordinate.

[timey]

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

Good, good, and back to the subject matter perhaps?  A non collapsing atomic structure?

[alancalverd]

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

Part of your problem is that the atom has no idea of its gravitational potential since that is only defined with respect to an arbitrary body of which it has no knowledge.

A hydrogen atom on the moon has gravitational potential  x joules with respect to the surface of the earth, y with respect to the sun, z with respect to Mars, and -a with respect to a point in free space at infinity. How does it know what energy corresponds to its own hyperfine 1s split (the "21 cm line")? The only rational answer is that the emitted photon energy is constant everywhere and the gravitational frequency shift is dependent on the relative position of the observer. 

For what it's worth, you can also untangle photons and clocks by considering "hydrogen 1s". The photon frequency is about 1.4 GHz, so can be used both as a detectable radio wave (astronomers love it) and as the timebase for a practical clock.

[alancalverd]

I'm sure you will find the Poppycock and Bollocks paper somewhere on arxiv.

Not just "somewhere" but almost everywhere! They are very prolific authors, particularly in the socail sciences. I believe they have been extensively studied by Dunning and Kruger, who were intrigued by the vast quantity and negligible quality of their output. 

[timey]

If the energy that holds the structure together is increased by gravity potential energy, the energy that prevents the atom from collapsing will also be increased proportionally.

Part of your problem is that the atom has no idea of its gravitational potential since that is only defined with respect to an arbitrary body of which it has no knowledge.

A hydrogen atom on the moon has gravitational potential  x joules with respect to the surface of the earth, y with respect to the sun, z with respect to Mars, and -a with respect to a point in free space at infinity. How does it know what energy corresponds to its own hyperfine 1s split (the "21 cm line")? The only rational answer is that the emitted photon energy is constant everywhere and the gravitational frequency shift is dependent on the relative position of the observer. 

For what it's worth, you can also untangle photons and clocks by considering "hydrogen 1s". The photon frequency is about 1.4 GHz, so can be used both as a detectable radio wave (astronomers love it) and as the timebase for a practical clock.

Oh of course silly me!  I see my error now.  I am expecting a particle to have consciousness of how much energy it has and they don't have brains.

Idiots aye!

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

The electrons in the link above don't have brains, but even if we don't currently know where they are in the radius of the nucleus, the gravity potential that they experience insures that they don't fall into the nucleus of the atom.  Increase the potential energy of the atom and the whole system will still operate as is, only faster.

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Quote:
" Classically a bound system is at a lower energy level than its unbound constituents, and its mass must be less than the total mass of its unbound constituents. For systems with low binding energies, this "lost" mass after binding may be fractionally small. For systems with high binding energies, however, the missing mass may be an easily measurable fraction. This missing mass may be lost during the process of binding as energy in the form of heat or light, with the removed energy corresponding to removed mass through Einstein's equation E = mc2. Note that in the process of binding, the constituents of the system might enter higher energy states of the nucleus/atom/molecule, but these types of energy also have mass, and it is necessary that they be removed from the system before its mass may decrease. Once the system cools to normal temperatures and returns to ground states in terms of energy levels, there is less mass remaining in the system than there was when it first combined and was at high energy. In that case, the removed heat represents exactly the mass "deficit", and the heat itself retains the mass which was lost (from the point of view of the initial system). This mass appears in any other system which absorbs the heat and gains thermal energy.[8]

As an illustration, consider two objects attracting each other in space through their gravitational field. The attraction force accelerates the objects and they gain some speed toward each other converting the potential (gravity) energy into kinetic (movement) energy. When either the particles 1) pass through each other without interaction or 2) elastically repel during the collision, the gained kinetic energy (related to speed), starts to revert into potential form driving the collided particles apart. The decelerating particles will return to the initial distance and beyond into infinity or stop and repeat the collision (oscillation takes place)."
Unquote:

Above we can see that a bound energy system can and does enter higher energy states.

Also we can see that your earlier calculations of potential energy for particle constituents of an atom were misconceived, because the bound energy of an atom amounts to less than the sum of its constituents, as energy is used and dissipated by the mechanics of the atom.
 
So...particles do not need brains in order to physically react to energy increases or decreases, it's only physicists who need brains to understand why!

...and when altering the why conceptually to make a fit for a new theory, the mathematics will not be the same...
I am posting here in search of a mathematician who actually is interested in calculating a new concept.

...and in that I have been posting here since April last year, putting a hell of a lot of energy into doing so, in light of the last 2 posts above, I can see that I've been wasting this energy and my time, which I shall now put into creating a crowd fund raiser with the intention of raising money to ***employ*** a mathematician instead.

So I guess its now a case of:

That's all folks!

[alancalverd]

You don't need a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You swill find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

 

....now read on....

[alancalverd]

You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

 

....now read on....

[timey]

You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

 

....now read on....

Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?

Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.

Furthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.

Simply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.

This altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics.  The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.

I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

i

You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

 

....now read on....

Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?

Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.

Somewhere in all those books you must have read of probability densities.

Gravitation is so weak in nuclear interactions that it may as well be absent. It takes a very large mass for gravitation to have any appreciable effect.

Furthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to here.

Simply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.

It's called spacetime not masstime.

This altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics.  The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.

I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.

If you really believe the universe is cyclic then learn how physics describes the current situation before attempting to change it. I am afraid it is not possible to understand the required physics without understanding the mathematics. That is just the way it is. That is why you are looking for a mathematician to help you. If all the physicists(mathematicians) are telling you that you are wrong then you need to understand why.

[alancalverd]

I disagree, Jeffrey. The mathematics of relativity, at least in one linear dimension, is trivial. If you can't describe the physics of a linear universe in a selfconsistent manner, there's no point in delving into 3D or 4D mathematics.

The cyclic universe is certainly more intellectually appealing than either a big bang or a steady state, but the notion that the probability function of an atomic electron, or the halflife of a muon,  depends on its position in a gravitational field does not appear to make sense - yet.

[timey]

i

You don't need to talk to a mathematician. You need to listen to a physicist. Or try reading your references. You will find the word "gravity" remarkably absent beyond

The proposal, first made in 1913, that the centrifugal force of the revolving electron just exactly balances the attractive force of the nucleus (in analogy with the centrifugal force of the moon in its orbit exactly counteracting the pull of the Earth's gravity) is a nice picture, but is simply untenable.

 

....now read on....

Why is it that you think that in changing the 'why' of a particles reaction to energy, this reverts the physics to a previously held concept?

Despite the fact that a nucleus and it's surrounding electrons do not resemble the moon in gravitational orbit to the earth, the process of how the electrons do interact with the nucleus has gravity potential energy and kinetic energy written all over it.

Somewhere in all those books you must have read of probability densities.

Gravitation is so weak in nuclear interactions that it may as well be absent. It takes a very large mass for gravitation to have any appreciable effect.

Furthermore, you said the energy level has nothing to do with the mass of the electron, but as the link states, the energy level affects the mass of the electron as per current mathematics.

I'm not even sure what you are referring to here.

Simply changing this concept of an increase in mass to being an increase in the rate of time, (observed by experiment via the greater frequency of energy transitions), in relation to an inverted gravitational time dilation of the open space of the atom, affords same observation for altered reason.

It's called spacetime not masstime.

This altered reason results in a fully described cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle in the black hole phenomenon, and needs no unobserved phenomenon to dimensionally balance its mechanics.  The model can explain all observation and gives explanation for previously unknown quantities and unexplained observations.

I'm all for having a laugh and a bit of fun but I don't really enjoy having 8+ years of serious thought process and related study dismissed out of hand by words like bollocks and poppycock, when sometimes it would seem that you haven't even read the post you are commenting on.

If you really believe the universe is cyclic then learn how physics describes the current situation before attempting to change it. I am afraid it is not possible to understand the required physics without understanding the mathematics. That is just the way it is. That is why you are looking for a mathematician to help you. If all the physicists(mathematicians) are telling you that you are wrong then you need to understand why.

To have an idea of what I am referring to you would have had to have been keeping up with the content.

The links provided, if read from beginning to end, give all the information you will need to understand what I am saying.

Yes - spacetime, not mass-time.  Its not the names of things that I'm altering.  (sigh).  Its the fact that the space part of spacetime that I'm altering remains un-warped by gravity and it is the 3 separate dimensions of time dilation that are causing the warping.  This causes distances to appear warped because it takes a longer or shorter amount of time to cover a unit of distance in open spaces that are being warped by time.  The warping of time is caused by gravity, by mass in relation to gravity, and by motion.

I did not start with a cyclic universe and work backward to the proposed inverted time dilation.  I started out with the concept of an inverted gravitational time dilation and worked out by means of checking to see how this notion changes current physics notions, that this idea would lead to the cyclic universe that I am describing.

This should really tell you that I have studied and referenced all aspects of this idea in relation to current physics.

Is this just a reference forum where one can be referenced to reading matter that pertains to physics, or is this a forum where physics ideas can be discussed in context and progressively?

[alancalverd]

So let's have another go at understanding your hypothesis.

Conventional general relativity says that

In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

and in he case of gravitational dilation, the effect is not reciprocal.

Now in inverse time dilation theory .....

(please complete the sentence, with regard to the structure and content of the examples given.)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Well I am all ears. I don't know where it is heading.

[timey]

So let's have another go at understanding your hypothesis.

Conventional general relativity says that

In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

and in he case of gravitational dilation, the effect is not reciprocal.

Now in inverse time dilation theory .....

(please complete the sentence, with regard to the structure and content of the examples given.)

Now in inverted gravitational time dilation theory ..... time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other, or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses...or observed of open space in relation to a mass.

The time dilation of an open space gravity field in relation to the mass causing this field runs counter directional in a gravity field to GR gravitational time dilation.  (hence the term inverted)  It is also incredibly hard to measure, or observe directly, because an observer, or observing clock placed in the open space is subject to GR time dilation due to the factor of the relationship then being mass in relation to the gravity field of the greater mass that is the cause of the gravity field being measured, and not a measure of the open space of the gravity field itself.

Inverted time theory then ditches the notion of relativistic mass for light, (ie: no kinetic energy, and no gravity potential energy), and then observes the shifts that light of all frequency experience in the open space gravity field as being purely inverted gravitational time dilation related.

[alancalverd]

You have introduced the concept of an open space gravity field. How does this differ from the gravity field we know and love?

[timey]

...(chuckle), that is funny - but:

An open space gravity field is the open space that surrounds any mass, and the energy of an open space gravity field decreases via the inverse square law with distance.  The concept of an open space gravity field inverted time dilation is differentiated from the phenomenon of GR gravitational time dilation by the fact of the open space gravity field being minus the mass of the observing mechanism.  ie: minus gravity potential energy.

[Ethos_]

...(chuckle), that is funny - but:

When we consider the "buts",... I just couldn't help "but" remember a quote from Richard Feynman........

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.......and you are the easiest person to fool."

I wish everyone participating in this thread to understand that this comment was not meant to be directed at anyone in particular. Nevertheless, every time we consider New Theories, that principle should never be overlooked.

[timey]

...(chuckle), that is funny - but:

When we consider the "buts",... I just couldn't help "but" remember a quote from Richard Feynman........

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.......and you are the easiest person to fool."

I wish everyone participating in this thread to understand that this comment was not meant to be directed at anyone in particular. Nevertheless, every time we consider New Theories, that principle should never be overlooked.

Great quote...

...and - albeit that currently held theories are currently held because they are the best mathematical fit to observation - the same principle cannot and must not be overlooked in our considerations of these current theories either...

[alancalverd]

So here's the definition we know and love

a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg).

and

the open space gravity field being minus the mass of the observing mechanism.  ie: minus gravity potential energy.

You can't subtract kilograms (mass) from newtons per kilogram, nor can you subtract newton-meters (energy) from newtons per kilogram. So I think your definition needs a bit of rethinking. The power of dimensional analysis is that it is the quickest and simplest way of checking whether the physics makes sense.   

[timey]

Alan you are vastly overcomplicating matters.

I quite simply mean that open space gravity field is a gravity field that is associated only with 1 mass.

A clock raised up in elevation to mass is a gravity field dealing with 2 masses. 

In the gravity field associated with 1 mass, gravity potential energy will not apply.

In the gravity field dealing with 2 masses, gravity potential will apply to the lesser mass raised above the greater mass.

...and that is all I meant.

[timey]

OK - to put it a different way:

We have a mass.  Around this mass is a gravity field that decreases in energy via the inverse square law with distance.

Looking at radius 1,2,3,4,5 of open space gravity field around this mass... We put clocks at radius 1,2,3,4,5 and all these clock's are subject to gravity potential energy that will be escalating by degree from radius 1 through to radius 5.

Take the clocks away from these radius... We are now looking at radius 1,2,3,4,5 as an open space gravity field because we are minus the clocks.

The proposed inverted gravitational time dilation is a measure of what time is doing for the locations of radius 1,2,3,4,5 minus the clocks, and will follow the decreasing energy of the gravity field surrounding the mass decreasing via the inverse square law with the distance of radius 1,2,3,4,5...
ie: the proposed inverted gravitational time dilation...
(Less energy = decreased rate of time. ie: inverted time theory)

Looking at what's happening in this situation from radius 5,4,3,2,1 of the open space gravity field, the energy of the gravity field is increasing in energy via...hmmm, the inverse square law reversed* from radius 5 through to 1...
ie: inverted gravitational time dilation...
(More energy = increased rate of time. ie: inverted time theory)

((*is that the cubing law? ...and please do answer, its how I learn))

Put the clocks back at radius 1,2,3,4,5, and potential energy is now a factor that increases the energy of the clock by degrees from radius 1 through to 5...
ie: GR gravitational time dilation...
(More energy = increased rate of time. ie: inverted time theory)

Looking at the situation from radius 5,4,3,2,1, the factor of gravity potential energy decreases for the clock from radius 5 through to 1...
ie: GR gravitational time dilation...
(Less energy = decreased rate of time. ie: inverted time theory)

[Ethos_]

From the outset, I've been captivated by your theory timey. But the evidence in support of it is speculative at best. The problem is you want to trade one variable for another, and while this substitution may seen reasonable, finding reasons why such a substitution generates a better answer than we already have is weak at best.

I'm afraid that your theory has one Achilles Heal that renders it unviable in the final analysis. And that Achilles Heal would be the Lorentz transformation. If your theory is tenable, it requires that Lorentz transformations be inaccurate. The evidence for these contractions have been clearly supported by experiments at the LHC.

Whether acceleration due to velocity or acceleration due to gravitational influence, Lorentz contractions are the scientific standard.

It's difficult to explain your theory as viable without opposing the Lorentz transformation. And I'm disappointed for you timey, I was encouraged by the prospect that the cyclical model could be strengthened.

[timey]

Yes Ethos - you are entirely correct in your assessment...  My model renders the Lorentz transformations as incorrect.

In fact, David Cooper had been taking the Lorentz transformations to task in a most interesting manner on the thread I've linked to below.  You can see what I have to say about the matter on the last page...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67903.0

[Ethos_]

Yes Ethos - you are entirely correct in your assessment...  My model renders the Lorentz transformations as incorrect.

Following is a quote from Wikipedia:

"Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat discs when traveling at near light speeds."

Go to Wikipedia and check out the page on "Length contraction". About half way down the page, they talk about the "Heavy ion" experiments.

BTW, I was mistaken when I said "the LHC" experiment. This experiment was done at Brookhaven National Lab. It shows the pancaking of the heavy ions at near light speeds and demonstrates the supporting evidence for the existence of length contraction.

[timey]

I've seen film of pilots faces experiencing what they call g-force.  I'm pretty certain this is not considered to be evidence of length contraction.

I've seen trains carriages that are travelling past me appear to be shorter than they really are when stationary because they are traveling past me at speed.  I'm pretty sure that this is also not considered to be evidence of length contraction.

A rocket in space is not going to suffer the same effect that a pilots face will, because in space there is no counter force of pressure acting against the rockets progress, as there is regarding the pilots face.  Logic tells me that this would also be the case for a heavy ion in space.

In the link below we can see that a length is only contracted when viewed from a reference frame other than the reference frame the length is situated in.  The length always retains its proper length in its own reference frame.

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

"The deviation between the measurements in all inertial frames is given by the formulas for Lorentz transformation and time dilation (seeDerivation). It turns out, that the proper length remains unchanged and always denotes the greatest length of an object, yet the length of the same object as measured in another inertial frame is shorter than the proper length."

Therefore I reckon that a pancaked heavy ion at light speed is either a case of pilots face, or a case of a time frame dependant observation that is proportional to the difference in rate of time between the observed and the observation reference frames.

[alancalverd]

OK - to put it a different way:

We have a mass.  Around this mass is a gravity field that decreases in energy via the inverse square law with distance.

Except it doesn't. If you are going to allow that a falling object gains kinetic energy (which it certainly does - they tend to accelerate) then it must be losing potential energy. Thus gravitiational potential must increase with distance.

The rest of your post seems to imply that the energy gradient of a gravitational field inverts if you insert a small mass at altitude. Now that's pretty impressive.

Put a cannonball in a shallow pit. Obviously as it is in contact with the earth, it forms part of the major gravitational mass.  Now let an electron from outer space approach the planet. The earth's gravity field gradient reverses, so the cannonball rises off the ground and snow flies off the top of mountains. I think not. 

The only alternative interpretation I can see is that time inverts locally in the absence of mass. The problem then is that I don't see a valid definition of time. If there is no mass, there can be no sequential events, therefore no dimension separating events. At this point, I'm sure you will say "what about light?" and the answer given by experiment is that it behaves in exactly the same way as a clock. So we are left with a notion that in deep space a zillion miles from anywhere, there are regions of inverse time, which have no impact on any physical phenomenon.

Now that's kinda cute because there certainly will be singularities within the universe where there is no mass, no photon, and no net gravitational field, and if your hypothesis holds water, time (whatever it means in that context) is inverted. I grant that it is marginally less bizarre as a concept than a 46-dimensional oscillating brane, but like string theory it either explains everything or explains nothing, and we have no way of telling which.
 
Anyway the inverse of an inverse square law is a square law. You're welcome.

[timey]

Square law - thanks...

And for the trip through your rather vivid imagination, which was highly enjoyable, but alas completely unrelated to anything I'm discussing.

A mass's gravity fields energy only increases at altitude for another mass at altitude. (ie: gravity potential energy).  Without any mass at altitude from the mass causing the gravity field, the gravity field decreases by the inverse square law...

Let's for starters, to avoid this hang up you have about some existing dimension being inverted, rename this proposed 'additional' gravitational time dilation as Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.

Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation is a proposed additional dimension of time dilation.  It is additional to SR and GR time dilation.

The proposed Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation is a measure of what time is doing in a gravity field where there is no mass, other than the mass causing the gravity field.

Vikki Ramsay gravitational the dilation is a measure of what time is doing in the open space that surrounds mass.

A cannonball will not float off into space due to the proposed Vikki Ramsay gravitational  time dilation...  Both a garden pea and a cannon ball will free fall towards earth at 9.807 m/s^2...

Vikki Ramsay time theory proposes that this acceleration of gravity is partially due to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.  That units of a time period get shorter, (ie: faster rate of time), as the gravity field gets stronger near mass.

This is an alternate means to same observation.

Both the cannonball and the pea are subject to GR gravitational time dilation.  If you attach a clock to the cannonball, or the pea, the clock will be travelling through the Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation of open space, but be experiencing GR gravitational time dilation, plus the SR slowing of time effects due its speed.

Can you understand now that Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation is a measure of what time is doing in open space... and Vikki Ramsay time theory states that GR gravitational time dilation is a measure of what time is doing for mass in open space.

[Ethos_]

Therefore I reckon that a pancaked heavy ion at light speed is either a case of pilots face, or a case of a time frame dependant observation that is proportional to the difference in rate of time between the observed and the observation reference frames.

In truth, we are left with a single choice between these two, variable time or length contraction. If either one is the standard by which we view reality, the other can not be.

In the case of length contraction, we do have observational evidence from the particle scattering effect, whether this is only an observer related phenomenon or an actual reality is subject to debate.

Concerning your alternative; If the advance of time is actually changing, I haven't discovered how we could detect it, and presenting even more difficulty, how do we measure the change?

What we are left with is a choice between the two, and for the present, I see more evidence in support of the Lorentz transformation than I see for your changing rate of time occurring.

Taking present observation into consideration, I see the balance scale favoring length contraction timey. Until you can show us evidence to the contrary, science is forced to stay with what we know and can observe, leaving the alternative to some future discovery.

I'll leave you and others with a thought I recently had regarding length contraction:

We currently view Lorentz transformations as unidirectional along the path of acceleration. I was musing over the question about singularities within the black hole when it occurred to me that if we construct a three dimensional Lorentz contraction, namely spherical, this may, along with the gravitational compression, be responsible for the creation of the theoretical point singularity at the center of the black hole.

Just thinking aloud usually gets me in trouble timey, but I felt the thought might be of interest to a few of our members................

I've offered just about all I can to this conversation so I'm signing off for now. Hopefully, resolutions will be forthcoming and my wish is and will always be for your success regarding this theory...................Good luck my friend.

[timey]

Ethos - the Lorentz transformations calculate length contraction, and as I understand it, in their inverse form they calculate SR time dilation.  Current physics currently holds that both length contraction and SR time dilation are occurring.

Current physics states that there are 2 forms of time dilation occurring in the universe.  SR motion related time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation... and these changes in how the rate of time progresses are already measured, defined by mathematics, and experimentally confirmed.

So its not a case of either length contraction, OR time dilation as you suggest.  Current physics states both as occurring.

I am 'adding' Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation and stating 3 forms of time dilation instead of 2.  Length contraction is stated as a time frame dependant observation that is proportional to the difference in rate of time. (ie: doesn't really happen, just appears like that when observed from an alternate reference frame experiencing a differing rate of time)

P.S. You put forward some interesting notions, but I'm afraid I'm extrapolating the notion of black holes being extremely hot and comprised of plasma.

Thank you for the good will.  Best to you as well.

[Ethos_]

Ethos - the Lorentz transformations calculate length contraction, and as I understand it, in their inverse form they calculate SR time dilation.  Current physics currently holds that both length contraction and SR time dilation are occurring.

Current physics states that there are 2 forms of time dilation occurring in the universe.  SR motion related time dilation and GR gravitational time dilation... and these changes in how the rate of time progresses are already measured, defined by mathematics, and experimentally confirmed.

So its not a case of either length contraction, OR time dilation as you suggest.  Current physics states both as occurring.

I have evidently misunderstood your position timey. I realize that currently we credit both time dilation and length contraction as components of relativity. My remarks were aimed at what I thought your model represented in comparison to the standard model.

I was under the impression that you were making a distinction between time dilation and what you keep referring to as a changing pace of time.

Correct me if I'm wrong with the following assumptions:

Are you saying that the only basic difference between your model and the standard model is that you have eliminated the Lorentz transformation from yours?

Because I was under the impression that you had not only removed the Lorentz contraction from your model, but that you had also added a second component of time alteration along with our standard time dilation.

[timey]

My model states, as current theory does, that there are 2 different dimensions of time dilation. These are SR time dilation, which is motion related, and GR gravitational time dilation that is gravity potential related.

My model then adds a 3rd dimension of time dilation.  Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation that is not gravity potential related, but gravity field related.

My model states that objects experiencing SR time dilation will appear length contracted, but it gives the observation of length contraction causation, and should negate the necessity for calculating both SR time dilation and length contraction appearances from the Newtonian time dependency.

The LIGO gravity wave increased the rate of time (as per Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation), for the duration of the gravity wave passing.  The light being sent down the tubes was, for the duration of the gravity wave passing, travelling at 299 792 458 metres per second that was a fraction shorter of a time period than the standard second.  Without realising that the gravity wave has fractionally increased the rate of time, the only explanation is that the tubes got fractionally shorter.  (But hang on a mo, length contraction does not occur in the reference frame of the observer!)

The Michael Morley experiment: This can almost be considered as the reverse scenario of the...blah, blah, etc.  I said all this on the gravity wave thread... If anyone actually understands me so far, I'll continue.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

And just when you thought it was safe to go back to relativity... There is actually a possibility that timey is right. I don"t have time to explain at the moment.

[Ethos_]

The Michael Morley experiment: This can almost be considered as the reverse scenario of the...blah, blah, etc.  I said all this on the gravity wave thread... If anyone actually understands me so far, I'll continue.

I haven't read through the gravity wave thread timey. Being 74 years of age and having very poor vision, I find it very difficult to keep up with every thread here. My aim is not to frustrate you timey, and I'm sorry if I've added to that in any way.

But at least, I now understand the proposed structure of your model much better. Agreeing with it may take additional evidence, especially where you make the distinction between gravitational potential and field relationships.

Give me some time to sort through this other thread before we take this conversation up again.  In the mean, I'm convinced that your views are worthy of serious consideration timey, and the proof is evidenced by the quality and quantity of participation rendered by fellows like Jeff and Alan who are highly respected here at TNS.

I'll get back with you a little later............................

[timey]

And just when you thought it was safe to go back to relativity... There is actually a possibility that timey is right. I don"t have time to explain at the moment.

Ah Jeff - and just as I was putting the finishing touches to my Patreon pitch... (chuckle)

I'll await your next post...

Ethos, the thread that I was discussing the gravity wave on was called "4 a deeper discussion: is distance an absolute invariant?".  But I am happy to continue my explanation into the Michaelson Morley if you have understood what I have already said about the gravity wave and the LIGO results.